canada tar sandshttp://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/3165/all
enPeople in Glass Houses Should Not Throw "Boneheads"http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/03/06/people-glass-houses-should-not-throw-boneheads
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/Joseph_Nocera_at_Berkman_Center.jpg?itok=BOjh89Jj" width="200" height="176" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><em>This is a guest post by </em><em>economist <a href="http://www.greatenergychallengeblog.com/author/jamesbarrett/">James P. Barrett, Ph.D.</a></em><br /><br /><em>“Utterly Boneheaded.” </em>That is how <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/opinion/nocera-how-not-to-fix-climate-change.html">Joe Nocera</a>, writing in <em>The New York Times</em> characterized <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/">James Hansen</a> (head of <span class="caps">NASA</span> Goddard Institute for Space Studies), <a href="http://www.billmckibben.com">Bill McKibben</a> (founder of 350.org) and other climate change activists opposing the Keystone <span class="caps">XL</span> pipeline.<br /><br />
If you haven’t been following it, the pipeline in question would bring something called bitumen, extracted from oil soaked sands in Canada, to <span class="caps">U.S.</span> refineries in Texas where they would turn it into oil products for sale <em>on international markets</em>.</p>
<p>If they stop the pipeline to Texas, activists will force oil companies to look at a more expensive plan to build a pipeline to British Columbia and ship the bitumen from there to refineries in China, an alternative that is facing its own opposition within Canada.<br /><br />
What Nocera thinks is boneheaded is not so much that activists want to reduce oil consumption and carbon emissions per se, but their strategy overall. As long as the demand for oil keeps going up, oil producers will keep developing unconventional oil reserves like the Canadian tar sands in question. In Nocera’s view, attacking the pipeline and the tar sands won’t help as long as the demand for oil is strong and growing. The problem, as he sees it is demand, not supply.</p>
<p>Nocera is right, but only to the extent that his point is meaningless.</p>
<!--break-->
<p>Demand and supply are equally important markets. Having one is pointless without having the other. If activists can make supplying oil more difficult, and thus more expensive, oil supply will go down, less oil will make it to market, and less carbon will hit the atmosphere. If oil supply goes down, oil consumption will go down. It’s Economics 101. Literally.</p>
<p>In truth, no matter how expensive activists make it, interfering with the development of Canadian tar sands will have a small if any impact on oil prices.<br /><br />
That’s because oil is bought and sold on a huge global market. The price is set by global economic factors with a fair amount of influence from the largest producers, like Saudi Arabia, that can raise or lower production in response to prices. Oil from the tar sands is a tiny drop in this huge oil barrel.</p>
<p>And this is where Nocera, a former Business columnist for the Times and 10-year veteran of Forbes magazine, goes full bonehead himself.<br /><br />
He claims that Hansen’s hope of charging oil companies a fee based on the pollution their products cause will actually <em>increase</em> oil production. Hansen hopes that such a fee would reduce carbon emissions by 30%.<br /><br />
But Joe Nocera knows better: “…maybe. But it would also likely make the expensive tar sands oil more viable. If you really want to eliminate expensive new fossil fuel sources, the best way is to lower the price of oil, which would render them uneconomical.”</p>
<p>The logic is absurd on its face: Imposing a fee on oil production would increase production of the most expensive types of oil to produce. If taxing things made them more profitable (why else would production go up), then why isn’t the oil industry screaming for new taxes, (or better yet, giving back the <a href="http://www.eli.org/pdf/Energy_Subsidies_Black_Not_Green.pdf">considerable tax breaks</a> they already get)?</p>
<p>Nocera makes an elementary mistake that my freshmen economics students used to make on occasion (very rare occasion): Taxes raise prices that consumers pay, while lowering the prices that producers get. It’s a perfect example of the classic “<a href="http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax_wedge.asp#axzz2M1Y6lc8D">tax wedge</a>,” which I expected my freshmen to understand by the end of their first semester.</p>
<p>The dripping irony is Nocera’s call for reducing oil consumption by encouraging oil production, all framed in an argument that calls others people’s logic “backwards.”<br /><br />
Whatever you think of climate change or the Keystone <span class="caps">XL</span> pipeline, you may not simultaneously claim that the problem with oil markets is high demand while also claiming that increasing oil prices would make the problem worse.</p>
<p>You should probably also not mock people as boneheads while you're doing your best to act like one yourself.<br /><br /><em>Image credit</em>: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Joseph_Nocera_at_Berkman_Center.jpg">Doc Searles | Wikimedia Commons</a></p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '6939';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=6939"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12185">Joe Nocera</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5857">Keystone XL</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/bill-mckibben">Bill McKibben</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3165">canada tar sands</a></div></div></div>Wed, 06 Mar 2013 13:00:00 +0000Guest6939 at http://www.desmogblog.comBombshell: Canadian Gov't Committee Tears Up Critical Tar Sands Reporthttp://www.desmogblog.com/bombshell-canadian-govt-committee-tears-critical-tar-sands-report
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>There is spin-doctoring an issue and then there is just tearing up evidence.</p>
<p>Two weeks ago there was news that Canada’s Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development had <a href="http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Politicians+cancel+oilsands+pollution+probe/3242727/story.html">literally torn up draft copies of a report </a>looking into the impacts the country’s massive tar sands operations were having on the fresh water supply.</p>
<p>Writing on the Tyee, author and tar sands expert Andrew Nikiforuk outlines in shocking detail just how much evidence was covered up by the Committee.</p>
<p>It is well worth the read: <a href="http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2010/07/15/TarSandsReport/?utm_source=mondayheadlines&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=190710"><strong>What Those Who Killed the Tar Sands Report Don’t Want You to Know</strong></a></p>
<p><!--break--></p></div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '4761';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=4761"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3165">canada tar sands</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3173">Andrew Nikiforuk</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3267">canada oil sands</a></div></div></div>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:26:19 +0000Kevin Grandia4761 at http://www.desmogblog.comPowerful US Congressman Sends Serious Opposition to Canada Oil Sands Pipelinehttp://www.desmogblog.com/powerful-democratic-congressman-sends-serious-opposition-canada-oil-sands-pipeline
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/canada-tar-sands.jpg?itok=-EfP3EAs" width="200" height="124" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Rep. Henry Waxman (D-<span class="caps">CA</span>), a senior member of Congress and chair of the powerful Congressional <a href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=2067:waxman-opposes-proposed-keystone-xl-tar-sands-pipeline&amp;catid=154:correspondence&amp;Itemid=55">Committee on Energy and Commerce</a> has penned a public letter to the Secretary of State, Hilary Rodham Clinton, in which he states strong opposition to a planned oil pipeline that would transport Canada’s controversial tar sands oil to the <span class="caps">US</span> Gulf Coast.</p>
<p>In the letter Waxman writes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The State Department’s decision on whether to permit this pipeline represents a critical choice about America’s energy future.</p>
<p>This pipeline is a multi-billion dollar investment to expand our reliance on the dirtiest source of transportation fuel currently available. While I strongly support the President’s efforts to move America to a clean energy economy, I am concerned that the Keystone <span class="caps">XL</span> pipeline would be a step in the wrong direction. (<strong><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/green/">hftsuuuttt</a></strong>)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You can download a full <span class="caps">PDF</span> copy of the<a href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/documents/20100706/State.070210.Clinton.Keystone.XL.pdf"> letter from Waxman to Clinton here. </a></p>
<p><!--break--></p>
<p>Upon completion, the Keystone <span class="caps">XL</span> pipeline would run 2,151 miles from Canada into the United States and then another 1,661 miles to the Gulf Coast.</p>
<p>The Canadian oil sands have come under ever-increasing scrutiny as the public becomes more aware of the human health and environmental impacts.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>Chairman Waxman’s letter signals that the infrastructure linchpin for the dirtiest oil in the world will no longer progress quietly through the regulatory process. The Obama Administration cannot make this decision in the back rooms; instead it must decide very publicly whether to start breaking our oil addiction now, it put it off for another time,” said Kenny Bruno from <a href="http://www.corpethics.org/">Corporate Ethics International</a> in response to the letter issued by Rep. Waxman.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Impacts of the Canadian tar sands include:</p>
<p>1. Oil sands mining is licensed to use<strong> twice the amount of fresh water</strong> that the entire city of Calgary uses in a year. The <strong><a href="http://www.neb.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnrgynfmtn/nrgyrprt/lsnd/pprtntsndchllngs20152004/qapprtntsndchllngs20152004-eng.html">water requirements for oil sands projects</a></strong> range from 2.5 to 4.0 barrels of water for each barrel of oil produced.</p>
<p>2. At least <strong>90% of the fresh water</strong> used in the oil sands ends up in tailing lakes so toxic that <strong><a href="http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=7367">propane cannons</a></strong> and <strong><a href="http://www.onearth.org/files/onearth/article_images/07fall_alberta41_slideshow.jpg">floating scarecrows</a></strong> are used to keep ducks from landing in them.</p>
<p>3. A 2003 report concluded that “an accident related to the failure of one of the oil sands<strong> <a href="http://www.swa.ca/Publications/AquaticEcosystem.asp">tailings ponds could have catastrophic impact </a> </strong>in the aquatic ecosystem of the Mackenzie River Basin due to the size of these lakes and their proximity to the Athabasca River.”</p>
<p>4. In April, 2008 a flock of migrating ducks <a href="http://oilsandstruth.org/dead-ducks-tar-canada039s-image-pm-says"><strong>landed on a tar sands toxic lake and died.</strong></a></p>
<p>5. The <strong>toxic tailing lakes</strong> are considered one of the largest human-made structures in the world. The <strong><a href="http://www.googleearthing.com/images/Image4-online.jpg">toxic lakes in Northern Alberta span 50 square kilometers</a></strong> and can be seen from space.</p>
<p>6. Producing a barrel of oil from the <a href="http://www.research.uottawa.ca/perspectives/10195"><strong>oil sands produces three times more greenhouse gas emissions</strong></a> than a barrel of conventional oil. In 2004, oil sands production surpassed 160 000 cubic meters (one million barrels) per day; by 2015, <strong><a href="http://www.neb.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnrgynfmtn/nrgyrprt/lsnd/pprtntsndchllngs20152004/qapprtntsndchllngs20152004-eng.html">oil sands production is expected to more than double</a></strong> to about 340 000 cubic meters (2.2 million barrels) per day.</p>
<p>7. The oil sands operations are the <strong>fastest growing source of heat-trapping greenhouse gas</strong> in Canada. By 2020 the oil sands will release twice the amount produced currently by all the cars and trucks in Canada.</p>
<p>8. The Alberta Oil Sands Operation are the <strong>largest single point source of greenhouse gas emissions</strong> in Canada.</p>
<p>9. By 2015, the Alberta Oil Sands are expected to <strong>emit more greenhouse gases than the nation of Denmark (pop. 5.4 million). </strong></p>
<p>Here’s a recent <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eZ6i2cUA24" target="_hplink"><span class="caps">MTV</span> News Special on Canada’s tar sands:</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eZ6i2cUA24" target="_hplink"></a>
<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="480" height="385" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0">
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9eZ6i2cUA24&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="385" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9eZ6i2cUA24&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
</p></div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '4747';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=4747"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/henry-waxman">henry waxman</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/oil-sands">oil sands</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2632">tar sands</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3165">canada tar sands</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3267">canada oil sands</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5139">keystone xl pipeline</a></div></div></div>Tue, 06 Jul 2010 20:45:11 +0000Kevin Grandia4747 at http://www.desmogblog.comCarbon Capture Won't Solve the Tar Sands - Canada's Environment Ministerhttp://www.desmogblog.com/carbon-capture-wont-solve-tar-sands-canadas-environment-minister
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/340x_0.jpg?itok=RxaQRX4x" width="200" height="276" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p class="p1">it’s official. Canadian Environment Minster Jim Prentice <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/carbon-capture-no-silver-bullet/article1170007/"><span class="s1">fessed up</span></a> to what experts have been <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/foip-scan.pdf"><span class="s1">saying all along</span></a>: that carbon capture and storage (<span class="caps">CSS</span>) is close to useless for mitigating the massive emissions from the Alberta tar sands.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p>
<p class="p1">Canadian Prime Minister Harper is no doubt pissed that his <a href="http://conservativesforprentice.blogspot.com/2008/11/welcome-to-conservatives-for-prentice.html"><span class="s1">potential leadership rival</span></a> has gone off message on such an <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/re-branding-alberta-tar-sands">important issue of spin</a>.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p>
<p class="p1">In an editorial board meeting with Globe and Mail <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/carbon-capture-no-silver-bullet/article1170007/"><span class="s1">Prentice admitted</span></a>: “<span class="caps">CCS</span> is not the silver bullet in the oil sands.”</p>
<p class="p1">Strange. That’s not what his boss said when he committed at least<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?m=/index&amp;nid=451299"><span class="s1">$650 million</span></a> in taxpayer’s dollars towards this bitumen boondoggle. Harper is a big booster of <span class="caps">CSS</span>, stating that:</p>
<p class="p1"><em>“This new technology, carbon capture and storage, when fully commercialized … will collect carbon dioxide emissions from oilsands operations and coal-fired electrical plants and seal them deep underground.”</em></p>
<p class="p1">It also obvious that Harper either didn’t read, or care about, the <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/foip-scan.pdf"><span class="s1">secret memo</span></a> from his own scientists several months earlier <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/24/sands-trap.html"><span class="s1">stating exactly the opposite</span></a>:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p>
<p class="p1"><em>“Only a small percentage of emitted <span class="caps">CO</span>2 is ‘capturable’ since most emissions aren’t pure enough,” the notes say. “Only limited near-term opportunities exist in the oilsands and they largely relate to upgrader facilities.”<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></em></p>
<p class="p1"><!--break-->Even using <span class="caps">CSS</span> at upgraders is largely a red herring since these facilities are increasingly nowhere near the tar sands. Much of the raw bitumen is now bound for <a href="http://www.financialpost.com/news-sectors/energy/story.html?id=1631715"><span class="s1">processing south of the border</span></a>.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p>
<p class="p1">So if <span class="caps">CSS</span> has almost no utility for reducing tar sands emissions, why does the Prime Minister of Canada keep claiming it does?<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p>
<p class="p1">The simple reason is that Harper and the Alberta government <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/gwynne-dyer/news/article.cfm?a_id=153&amp;objectid=10542252"><span class="s1">are terrified</span></a> that meaningful cap and trade legislation moving through the <span class="caps">US</span> Congress will make the already marginal economics of the tar sands even worse.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p>
<p class="p1">A <a href="http://www.ceri.ca/%22%20%5Cl%20%22briefing"><span class="s1">recent report</span></a> showed that oil prices might have to <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/article1140129.ece"><span class="s1">top $110 per barrel</span></a> to make meaningful emission cuts profitable.</p>
<p class="p1">Even with a <a href="http://alberta.ca/ACN/200807/23960039FB54D-CC21-7234-31C3E853089A1E6C.html">whopping $2 billion</a> in additional <span class="caps">CSS</span> funds from the Alberta government, tar sands operators are giving this <a href="http://www.calgaryherald.com/entertainment/giants+pull+bids+Alberta+carbon+capture+funding/1455369/story.html"><span class="s1">supposed panacea a pass</span></a>.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p>
<p class="p1">This year, <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/shell-abandons-alberta-tar-sands-emissions-cuts-see-you-courta"><span class="s1">Shell Oil reneged</span></a> on a commitment to reduce carbon emissions from a $13.7 billion expansion to conventional levels, even though this exposes them to litigation from environmental groups that threatens their project permitting.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p>
<p class="p1">Of course even if <span class="caps">CSS</span> worked perfectly at the tar sands without evaporating profitability, it would do nothing about the <a href="http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/12/04/TarSands/"><span class="s1">enormous downstream emissions</span></a> from burning all that refined oil in cars – four times the production emissions.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p>
<p class="p1">None of this has stopped the Harper and Alberta government from shoveling billions in Canadian taxpayers money towards this unproven technology that has yet to be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage%22%20%5Cl%20%22Cost_of_CCS"><span class="s1">commercialized anywhere in the world</span></a>.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p>
<p class="p1">Yet in the last federal budget, Harper allocated virtually all “green” stimulus money towards <span class="caps">CSS</span> - giving <a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=1230661"><span class="s1">virtually nothing</span></a>, to wind, solar or other green technologies such as modernizing the grid or promoting energy conservation.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p>
<p class="p1">Renewable industry representatives were <a href="http://www.canwea.ca/media/release/release_e.php?newsId=54"><span class="s1">naturally disgusted</span></a>. Canadian Wind Energy Association president <a href="http://beta.technologyreview.com/blog/energy/22544/"><span class="s1">Robert Hornung predicts</span></a> that existing federal funding may even <a href="http://www.canwea.ca/media/release/release_e.php?newsId=54">run out before the end of the coming fiscal year</a>.</p>
<p class="p1"><em>“Our ability to compete with the United States for investment in wind energy projects and manufacturing opportunities will decline as a result of this budget. At a time when the United States has made measures to support renewable energy deployment a key component of its plans to stimulate the <span class="caps">US</span> economy, Canada is moving in the opposite direction.”</em></p>
<p class="p1">In contrast, President Obama has <a href="http://www.energyboom.com/upside-down"><span class="s1">invested $67 billion</span></a> towards the renewable energy, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE51876P20090209"><span class="s1">stating clearly</span></a> this is a pillar of the <span class="caps">US</span> economy in the coming century. The <span class="caps">US</span> is now investing <a href="http://www.ontario-sea.org/Storage/29/2108_canada-v-us-investment-in-re-ee-backgrounder.pdf">six times as much per capita</a> towards growing their green energy sector.<span class="Apple-converted-space"></span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>“<em>We all know that the country that harnesses this new energy source will lead the 21st century,</em>” <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/remarks-of-president-barack-obama-address-to-joint-session-of-congress/">Obama told the world.</a></p>
<p class="p1">That country will clearly not be Canada.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p></div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '3930';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=3930"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3165">canada tar sands</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3267">canada oil sands</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4357">canada environment</a></div></div></div>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 00:14:33 +0000Mitchell Anderson3930 at http://www.desmogblog.comTop 10 Facts About the Alberta Oil Sandshttp://www.desmogblog.com/top-10-facts-about-the-alberta-oil-sands
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/images/blog-feature-3179.jpg?itok=bEwX8oZo" width="200" height="109" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">We started a short and sweet resource page on the <a href="/top-10-facts-canada-alberta-oil-sands-information"><strong>environmental impacts of the Canada Oil Sands operation.</strong></a> If you would like to add a link to further resources drop us a line at: desmogblog [at] gmail [dot] com or leave it in the comment section below. </div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '3179';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=3179"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2580">alberta oil sands</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3164">canadas oil sands</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3165">canada tar sands</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3166">facts about the tar sands</a></div></div></div>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:12:38 +0000Terrance Berg3179 at http://www.desmogblog.com